DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-21 are pending in the application. Claims 18-21 are withdrawn from consideration as non-elected, and claims 1-17 are pending and presented for the examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/28/2023 and 11/26/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites that the solid solution of zinc aluminate and zinc titanate has a chemical formula of Zn1+xAl2-2xTixO4, and further that x is from 0 to 1 inclusive. This allows for x values of 0 and 1, and thus allows for the formula to be ZnAl2O4 or Zn2TiO4; in other words, claim 2 broadens claim 1 by allowing for either ZnAl2O4 or Zn2TiO4, rather than a phase that includes both as is required by claim 1. Because the dependent claim 2 improperly broadens, rather than narrows, the scope of the claim from which it depends, claim 2 is indefinite under USC 112.
Claim 13 recites that the solid solution of zinc aluminate and zinc titanate has a chemical formula of Zn1+xAl2-2xTixO4, and further that x is from 0 to 1 inclusive. This allows for x values of 0 and 1, and thus allows for the formula to be ZnAl2O4 or Zn2TiO4; in other words, claim 13 broadens claim 12 by allowing for either ZnAl2O4 or Zn2TiO4, rather than a phase that includes both as is required by claim 12. Because the dependent claim 13 improperly broadens, rather than narrows, the scope of the claim from which it depends, claim 13 is indefinite under USC 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riman et al (EP 2217544 B1) in view of Yasuoka et al (US 5447894).
Regarding claim 1, Riman et al teaches a method of producing a monolithic ceramic body comprising a matrix and infiltrated phase (see claim 1). Riman et al teaches an embodiment wherein the matrix is Al2O3 and infiltration forms ZnAl2O4 (see page 8, lines 24-26). The phase formed by infiltration would exist within the porous matrix and would thus be structurally equivalent to a precipitate phase of ZnAl2O4, as in the instant claim. Riman et al further teaches that the infiltration phase can be Zn2TiO4 (see page 21, paragraph 0031). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at a material with an Al2O3 matrix and an infiltration phase containing ZnAl2O-4 along with Zn2TiO4 through routine optimization and experimentation with the finite list of embodiments taught by Riman et al. ZnAl2O4 and Zn2TiO4 necessarily exist as spinel structure.
Riman et al does not specify that the Al2O3 matrix is corundum. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Riman et al in view of Yasuoka et al in order to use a corundum-structured Al2O3 in the Riman et al material, because Yasuoka et la teaches a similar ceramic body with alumina matrix, and provides a specific teaching that the Al2O3 is advantageously in corundum form (see Abstract). This teaching would provide one of ordinary skill in the art to use a corundum form of alumina when preparing the Riman et al material, because the lack of specific teaching as to this morphology in Riman would cause one to look to other teachings for guidance as to this factor, and Yasuoka et al provides such a teaching. Each limitation of claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, routine optimization and experimentation with the Riman et al teachings would lead one of ordinary skill to a material having both ZnAl2O4 and Zn2TiO4 as the infiltrated phase. The phase formed by any combination of these two compounds would be represented by a formula according to that of instant claim 2 wherein x can be any value from 0 to 1 inclusive. The further limitations of claim 2 would thus necessarily be met by the aforementioned embodiment suggested by the Riman et al teachings.
Regarding claim 7, the Riman et al process of producing a phase through reactive infiltration into a porosity would produce a phase wherein at least some of the individual domains are isolated from each other and fully enclosed by the matrix phase.
Regarding claims 8-9, the aforementioned Riman embodiment having an Al2O3 matrix phase contains no rutile TiO2.
Regarding claim 10-11, the aforementioned Riman embodiment having an Al2O3 matrix phase contains no Al2TiO5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a ceramic article meeting each limitation of instant claim 1 and further meeting the limitation of claims 3, 4, 5, or 6.
Claims 12 and 14-17 allowed. The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a radio frequency circulator comprising a ceramic disk meeting each limitation of instant claim 12.
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
13. Claims 1-2, 7-11, and 13 are rejected. Claims 3-6 are objected to. Claims 12 and 14-17 are allowed. Claims 18-21 are withdrawn from consideration as non-elected.
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW16 February 2026